Hogwash. A class of devices called the Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) has been around for almost 25 years. I remember when my Intel Field Service Engineer was hyping Xilinx FPGA’s to me in the mid-1980’s. I presumed Intel had a financial stake in Xilinx. They were way too slow for anything I was doing but they can be reconfigured on the fly, in-circuit, running hot.

That's interesting because five or ten years ago, New Scientist had a cover story on a laboratory evolution demonstration using FPGAs. They used one to evolve a pair of audio tone detectors, utterly unaided by human intelligence.

Some background: A Gate Array is a chip with a very large number of basic logic gates on it - AND gates, OR gates, flip-flops, etc. These gates are not interconnected as they come out of the factory. Instead, the outputs of all of the gates go to a series of switches and crossbars that allow the output of just about any gate to be connected to the input of just about any other gate. That means that you can "wire up" a custom circuit by setting the switches.

The first gate arrays were programmed at the factory. You worked out which switches needed to be set to which positions to produce the circuit you wanted, then you sent a list of those switch positions to the factory and the factory "flipped" the switches while it was manufacturing the chip. You got your chips a month or two later and the minimum order was usually a thousand chips.

In the next advance, Gate Array chips were produced whose switches could be Programmed in the Field by inputting a string of ones and zeros. Typically, a circuit would have a Field Programmable Gate Array chip plus a small memory chip. At startup, the memory chip would feed a string of ones and zeros into the FPGA which would flip all the switches necessary to produce the circuit you wanted and you were off. This was a lot faster and cheaper than sending a list into the factory and getting your programmed chips two months later, especially if you didn't need a thousand of them.

The New Scientist article told how some scientists decided to evolve a series of ones and zeros that would convert a FPGA into a circuit that took in an audio signal and made one output pin go high if a certain tone was detected and a second output pin go high if a second tone was detected.

To do this, they loaded a computer with a string of totally random ones and zeros. They programmed the computer to feed this string into a FPGA, input a series of audio tones and watch the output pins to see if either went high when the appropriate tone was detected. If either pin failed to give the appropriate output, the string of ones and zeros was mutated slightly and fed back into the FPGA chip and the test was repeated. At this point, the experimenters went out for a cup of coffee.

As I recall, one of the first steps towards evolving a tone detector circuit was when the outputs of two gates were connected together (normally a big no-no) and one was set to give a high output and the other a low. This effectively short circuited the power supply, screwed up all the voltage levels in the FPGA chip - and the screwed up voltage levels converted the chip from digital to linear!

Several thousand iterations later, the chip was reliably detecting the first tone and a few thousand iterations after that, it was detecting both tones properly, exactly as desired.

It's kind of scary to think that DaveTard could have performed a pioneering labratory experiment demonstrating Darwinian evolution twenty five years ago and blew it. I'd hate to think of him on our side.

God forbid you tell a 10th grader that Darwin was a racist and his theory inspired the science of eugenics.

Oh, and it just ocurred to me that according to Ernst Mayr I must be a different species from Inuits. We’re reproductively isolated by geography and there isn’t a snowball’s chance in south central Texas I’d be attracted to an Inuit woman anyhow even though we’re probably still physically compatible on a hypothetical basis sort of like brown bears and polar bears.

More to the point, why would any woman, let alone an Inuit, be attracted to Dave?!

--------------"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers------"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

We have been studying Stonehenge for how long and still only have vague notions about it. Using your logic that should mean we declare Stonehenge a wholly natural product that did not require agency involvement.

We have strong scientific evidence that Stonehenge was built by a particular species of tool-making primate called "humans". These organisms are bipedal, have twelve-pair ribs and three ear bones in each of two ears. They have a variety of cultural adaptations that have resulted in the erection of a variety of lithic monuments. They appear to communicate by flapping their meat at each other.

I think it is pretty safe to say that Dr Sermonti knows more about genetics than the Pixie does.

Perhaps. But the vast majority of geneticists disagree with Sermonti's position. An appeal to authority is valid when

* The cited authority has sufficient expertise. * The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise. * The area of expertise is a valid field of study. * There is adequate agreement among experts in the field and the cited authority is expressing that consensus. * There is no evidence of undue bias.

The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence, which is exactly what The Pixie has presented. Joseph's appeal to authority fails because Sermonti has been unable to convince his own peers of the validity of his views.

The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe: This is still true even when the trend is clearly running against them, that is, when the problems for the theory become greater and greater with new scientific data.

“The God’s Must Be Crazy”- A coke bottle drops from an airplane flying over a remote part of Africa. The main character never saw a Coke bottle before. He didn’t know what it was but he knew it didn’t come from Mother Nature. He didn’t have to know Coca-Cola. He didn’t have to know anything about glass-blowing or glass-blowers.

The Bushman mythology also includes the spirit world's influence on rain, healing and the success of the hunt. Whether the Coke bottle was inhabited or gifted by spirits is not a scientific question.

That is not correct. Archaeology is one such science that makes a point of studying design, more specifically, artifacts, artisans and their art. Science disallows appeal to an ineffable designer as a substitute for evidence, a.k.a. God of the Gaps.

They (IDiots at UD) know we are here talking about them, picking their arguments to shreds (nice Fisking Zachriel) yet in all the time I've been here nobody has ever dropped in from UD to say "no, you've got it wrong and here's why".

I guess they don't feel the need to compete with Zachriel et al's "pathetic level of detail".

IDiots.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

I was talkking about a hypothetical ID scenario. I thought that was quite clear, given that ID has no actual scenarios.

Quote

The data is there. YECers have decided where it leads them. Mainstream scientists have decided where it leads them. IDists, well I guess we are still waiting. But I hear another textbook is out soon, nevertheless.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I presume you are making a design inference that Patrick wasn't asking why anyone is talking to Joseph? Can we see your math?

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

I presume you are making a design inference that Patrick wasn't asking why anyone is talking to Joseph? Can we see your math?

Carlsonjok, it is not my job to match your pathetic level of detail.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I can't access the one paper from Dr. Gordon she cites, but the other paper by Dr. Doolittle has been discussed http://www.uncommondescent.com/educati....t-92415 here. In short, according to my reading, the paper does not suggest that common ancestry is false - it proposes that the concept of "ancestry" must be broadened to include activities like HGT which may break the "tree" aspects of the tree of life; this is not, I think, what Denyse is implying the paper says.

But what difference does that make when you want to include YECs in your big tent?

Come on, just one specific example to prove me wrong. Simple or complex. Say what the evidence is that would lead you to conclude design, and I will see if I can tell you anything about how it was done.

If Joseph would actually consider this question critically, it might result in a bit of understanding on how artifacts are scientificially studied, the limits to our ability to understand such processes, and how dependent we are on what we have already experienced. The primary methodology of forensics is to compare a particular case to previous instances in order to link the evidence with the method and with the perpetrator. In fact, the identification of the cause of a fire, human or otherwise, is the entire point of fire investigation.

You can tell that Jerry's trying hard to get himself off Double Secret Probation after his little, uh, lapse yesterday:

Quote

In order to avoid the taint of a God existing, ID points out the obvious. Namely, that some aspects of life could only have been designed. That is all. They stop there.

You are being disingenuous by pressing for the nature of the designer because you know that most ID people believe it is God and if they admit such you can triumphantly claim that there, it is religion being introduced and as such cannot be taught.

It is a phony insistence to express care about the nature of the designer. Why not let the student speculate and let science study how the design was implemented and then comment on the nature of the designer in a philosophy course.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Joseph: “By looking at an automobile can you tell me who designed it and how it was manufactured? I doubt it.”

Pixie: Look at the front of most cars you will see a symbol or emblem; might say “Ford” on it, for instance. That will tell you the name of the company that designed and created it. A big clue I think.

A different stupidity from Joseph (#48) that I found even funnier:

Quote

(From Joseph) Again the double-standards are obvious. Anti-IDists want IDists to have or at least search for every anal-retentive detail before they will consider it. All the while knowing that their position is void of details and hangs on imaginative narratives.

Let's see - Natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, recombination, sexual selection: absolutely no evidence other than some stone-age fables recorded by barely literate bronze-age goatherds and published without peer review in a big book.

Creation by god: Regularly documented by observations in the field and well understood and verified via frequently reproduced experiments in the laboratory.

Dagnabit, I guess Joseph really has us there.

And I guess Joseph's point is further nailed down by that well-known quote by ardent evolutionist Dr. Michael Behe, where he said that the only evidence that would convince him of creation by god would be a complete step-by-step list of everything involved, a detailed account of the processes that would be operating, demonstration of the practicality of the expected time scale over which the creation would be expected to occur, other potential ways to solve the problem which might interfere, and much more.

Or not.

Tard is at its best when it leavens stunning stupidity and ignorance with a giant dollop of projection.

Edited to add two other Josephic Gems:

Quote

ID does NOT say that evolution cannot produce IC. That you would say such a thing exposes your ID ignorance. Thanks, although it has been very obvious that you don’t understand the basics.

and

Quote

Why is that? You do realize that no one is saying that “God” had to Create a perfect design or even if the design started out perfectly that it had to remain that way.

Genesis 1: .... and God saw that it was good ..... and God saw that it was good ......and God saw that it was good .... and God saw that it was good ........ (Genesis 1:31) And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.Yep, I'm going with Joseph on this one.

Joseph: “By looking at an automobile can you tell me who designed it and how it was manufactured? I doubt it.”

Pixie: Look at the front of most cars you will see a symbol or emblem; might say “Ford” on it, for instance. That will tell you the name of the company that designed and created it. A big clue I think.

Heh. Not just any non-avian biped, but one named "Ford". Quite an astute observer that Pixie is.

You can tell that Jerry's trying hard to get himself off Double Secret Probation after his little, uh, lapse yesterday:

Quote

In order to avoid the taint of a God existing, ID points out the obvious. Namely, that some aspects of life could only have been designed. That is all. They stop there.

You are being disingenuous by pressing for the nature of the designer because you know that most ID people believe it is God and if they admit such you can triumphantly claim that there, it is religion being introduced and as such cannot be taught.

It is a phony insistence to express care about the nature of the designer. Why not let the student speculate and let science study how the design was implemented and then comment on the nature of the designer in a philosophy course.

Wha-?

Dude, I spent part of my summer at a dig. Okay, it dealt with recent history (1800s mill ruins), but still that makes my point - you're supposed to get some idea who the "designers" were from their designs, and in fact we had to know that our "designers" designed mill thingies to go looking for mill artefacts in the first place. Well, I suppose that's a tautology, then! Sue me!

They're trying to poison the well against any premature "It's God!" tada, but I ask you this - I can't help but wonder about the "don't wonder about the Designer" argument if these jokers found a message like this in a biological structure:

HELP ME I'M BEING HELD PRISONER IN AN ALTERNATE REALITY AND THE UNIVERSE IS BEING RUN BY A CHARLATAN

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

ID does NOT say that evolution cannot produce IC. That you would say such a thing exposes your ID ignorance. Thanks, although it has been very obvious that you don’t understand the basics.

If you ask 3 top-tier IDers a basic question like "Can evolution produce IC?", you'll get 4 different answers. Joe's accusation that Pixie is ignorant of ID assumes that there's a single ID "theory" to be ignorant of. Sorry, Joe, the tent's way too big for that.

--------------"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

ID does NOT say that evolution cannot produce IC. That you would say such a thing exposes your ID ignorance. Thanks, although it has been very obvious that you don’t understand the basics.

If you ask 3 top-tier IDers a basic question like "Can evolution produce IC?", you'll get 4 different answers. Joe's accusation that Pixie is ignorant of ID assumes that there's a single ID "theory" to be ignorant of. Sorry, Joe, the tent's way too big for that.

That's because there are multiple definitions of IC (Irreducible Complexity). Behe has defined IC as "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". But IC can be produced by step-by-step evolutionary processes, such as by removal of components, by cooption, or by duplication and specialization.

A simplistic example is a function A which is duplicated into A1 and A2. It is possible for each component to evolve to optimize aspects of the overall function while losing the ability to perform the entire original function in isolation. Complex and irreducible cascades can be created in this fashion.

BlarneyA demonstrates that an aptitude for accounting does not a scientific mindset make.

Quote

The Illusion of Knowledge RevisitedBarryA

...Both Darwinism and the standard model are based upon inferences from observations, not direct observations. They are in a different epistemic category from, say, the heliocentric solar system, which has been observed directly.

Set aside the unintended irony of the title of his post.

The heliocentric solar system was amenable to "direct observation" as such (say, by means of the first Voyager) only because of the success of inferences from observations that were leveraged into Newton's mathematical model of gravitation and its generalization to celestial mechanics - a model that waited nearly three centuries for "direct observation" yet was secure nonetheless. BlarneyA sets out to dis inferential reasoning within science (a tired trope within creationist epicycles) and instead refutes himself, without knowing it.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

BlarneyA demonstrates that an aptitude for accounting does not a scientific mindset make.

Quote

The Illusion of Knowledge RevisitedBarryA

...Both Darwinism and the standard model are based upon inferences from observations, not direct observations. They are in a different epistemic category from, say, the heliocentric solar system, which has been observed directly.

Set aside the unintended irony of the title of his post.

The heliocentric solar system was amenable to "direct observation" as such (say, by means of the first Voyager) only because of the success of inferences from observations that were leveraged into Newton's mathematical model of gravitation and its generalization to celestial mechanics - a model that waited nearly three centuries for "direct observation" yet was secure nonetheless. BlarneyA sets out to dis inferential reasoning within science (a tired trope within creationist epicycles) and instead refutes himself, without knowing it.

The movement of the Earth was well-established by indirect observations. Early, direct observations included Bradley's discovery of stellar aberration in 1725, Bessel's measurement of stellar parallax in 1838, and Foucault's pendulum in 1851.

Hey, I am an extremely broad-minded guy and all, but... uh... being attracted to Bill Dembski and Ann Coulter?

[violent shuddering here]

I mean, shit, that's like being attracted to DAVE SCOT.

Amoral church-burning, ebola-spreading Darwimp tho I am, some things are just sick!

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

The movement of the Earth was well-established by indirect observations. Early, direct observations included Bradley's discovery of stellar aberration in 1725, Bessel's measurement of stellar parallax in 1838, and Foucault's pendulum in 1851.

Naturally. (And I bow to your erudition - truly impressive. Should be known as Zachrudition).

But for BlarneyA, these wouldn't qualify as "direct observation." In that world, direct observation of a heliocentric solar system consists in, "see, there's the sun. And over there is a planet oribiting the sun." By that standard, the significance of the precession of a pendulum vis the rotation of the earth is strictly inferential.

Have you ever seen a cat turn into a dog?

I thought not.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

God forbid you tell a 10th grader that Darwin was a racist and his theory inspired the science of eugenics.

Oh, and it just ocurred to me that according to Ernst Mayr I must be a different species from Inuits. We’re reproductively isolated by geography and there isn’t a snowball’s chance in south central Texas I’d be attracted to an Inuit woman anyhow even though we’re probably still physically compatible on a hypothetical basis sort of like brown bears and polar bears.

That reminds me of a joke that I heard from a comedian at a comedy club a few weeks ago.

"My boss doesn't think he's racist but he says racist things all the time without realizing it, but he's my boss y'know, so I can't call him on it, I just have to play along. Just about every Tuesday he goes to Hooters and he loves to talk about Hooters all the time, even though no on is interested. But he's my boss, so I suck up to him. Wednesday morning I asked him. 'So! How was Hooters? Was your waitress hot?' He seemed really disappointed. He scoffed and said, 'No, she was black.' So what could I say? 'Jeez, that's terrible. Did you complain to the manager? You know, they really should screen for that sort of thing.'"